User talk:Chzz/Archive 19

Iain McNicol
you for doing the redirect from the misspelling. I copied the edit tags from the incorrect article and sorted the stub. -- Rpyle731talk 20:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, cheers. I intended to look back on it ASAP, as I realized more was needed, but was busy helping another new user. If you do need any more help with it (or anything), feel free to drop me a further note.  Chzz  ►  20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Rpyle731talk 03:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with Huggle
You reverted two edits by Thesmatestguy that readded vandalism that Thesmatestguy removed with Huggle. Be careful.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm? Which edits?  Chzz  ►  01:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a link to his talk page. The diffs are there.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, yep, found it; removed it; thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/F.C. Grimsby
This request seems to already exist at Team Bath Futsal Club, but you declined it for verifiability. Just wondering. avs5221 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Copypasta? Probably; the club in AfC lacked proof of notability; I thought that the decline reason might help them to understand that. I guess they didn't change the name when pasting.   Chzz  ►  01:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source for accessible bathtub
Hi Chzz, I saw your note about the bathtub manufacturer's site not being a reliable source. I have been looking for a third-party source about this style of tub, but I can't find one that isn't a commercial site selling the tubs; it seems to be a relatively new design. Most of the third-party articles are specifically about walk-in tubes. However, in using the source, I was following Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines regarding [Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves|self-published sources as sources on themselves. The manufacturer of the tub is in fact a reliable source for the information that this type of tub is designed for access from a wheelchair and has a raised bed and a sliding door. It makes more sense to use the manufacturer's site than a third-party seller's site--the only other source I could find for the same information. I'm reverting the removal but deleting the adjective "easy" to try to improve the neutrality of the statement and make sure it "is not unduly self-serving." Will that do for you? I know the article needs more information and sources. It's awfully difficult to find good sources about accessible tubs that aren't from the manufacturers themselves--and the AARP article is terribly vague and lacks pictures. Want to help?--Margareta (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I do understand your argument, but I removed the reference because of the promotional nature of the link. The Rs states that such links may be used, but with certain conditions, including;


 * "the material is not unduly self-serving" - I think that it is self-serving, because it promotes this particular brand, and
 * "the article is not based primarily on such sources." - with such a short article, currently I feel that this is the case.


 * I do sympathise that it is hard to find independent sources, but it is absolutely necessary to do so, for a live article - we must maintain a neutral point-of-view. More appropriate resources might include newspaper or magazine articles about them, or books. There might be information on some government websites, or other organizations that deal with disabilities.


 * You could try some Google searching, particularly under the 'news' and 'books' section. For example, Google News search for "disabled bath" (I'm not advocating all these sources; just suggesting it as a starting point; try other words, like "disabled bathing", "mobility", "bathtub" and other combinations. From a little work, for example, I found an article, For the Aging And Disabled, Products They Can Use in NY Times, and various others. Book search yielded Life on Wheels: The A to Z Guide to Living Fully with Mobility Issues, and various others to trawl through.


 * It takes a bit of 'creative Googling' - but try the 'news' and 'book' options. I hope that this helps, best,  Chzz  ►  04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've been doing the creative Googling, and have found information on most other styles of tubs except this one (see, e.g. the CMHC link I've just added, though it relies on manufacturers' sites)--and only one manufacturer makes them, so there are no competing brands to mention. For example, the NYT article you linked to is 22 years old, while it looks like the sliding-door tub was launched in the last couple years. The book you link to also doesn't mention this type of tub (though it does mention another type of tub I didn't know about--I'll add it to the article). What do you suggest we do about technology that's on the market but is so new it hasn't been included in overviews such as the ones you've listed? Omit them, or simply mention them without references to avoid mentioning the manufacturer?--Margareta (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would advise not reporting on new types that have not been covered in the media; they wouldn't be classed as notable. If you start adding information about products and designs that have not been reported upon, it may be considered original research. Wikipedia is concerned with enduring notability, and there is no deadline. Apologies for linking to various policies, and guides.


 * Feel free to ask for further advice on the help channel.  Chzz  ►  04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
avs5221 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

avs5221 (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

avs5221 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much talking back currently. Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This talk page is haunted.  Chzz  ►  07:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcoming. I've had some experience with editing wikis before, but I only know the basics.

I'll try not to over-link, thanks for the advice. :) KingArmery (talk)

Thanks, bro!
I appreciate the assist on my talk page just now. I wish to high heaven that these goofy kids would take the time to read the doggoned rules before they post nonsense. In any event, thanks very much. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * NP; By the sounds of it, you might be picking up their lingo LOL!!!eleven  Chzz  ►  06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Flagged revisions
I have nominated Flagged revisions, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Flagged revisions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kept  Chzz  ►  18:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ✅

Squash thingie
Hi again! Thanks for taking care of that issue with the squash tournament. What I deleted was only the first two introductory sentences; there were no charts. All better now, but here's hoping the author sees fit to flesh out the text soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Solution to my Log-in woes
I want, first, to thank you for your help today on my Talk Page regarding my User name converting to lower case and not allowing me to log in. I wanted to share the solution with you just in case someone else reports the same problems. I went to Tools, then Options as you suggested (I am using Firefox on Windows XP) and, while looking for the information you suggested I noticed in the security section there was a button labeled "Saved Passwords". I found the saved password for the incorrect User name, deleted it and when I returned to Wiki Log-in all was as it should be and I am no longer being logged off when I leave the site Thank you so very much, could not have found the solution without your help!! OneHappyHusky (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

welcome messages
Welcomes should go on talk pages, not user pages. I moved the one you just placed on User:Struvite. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoops, yep; I thought I was on the talk page. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No prob. It happens. I know i've made my fair share of mistakes. :D Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Software Top 100: a reliable source
Dear Chzz, I would like to invite you to enter again into discussing Software Top 100 as being a reliable source or not, on my talk page. You once entered into the discussion once before on User_talk:Esoteric_Rogue so I hope you will contribute again. Thanks! --BalderV (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User talk:Esoteric Rogue  Chzz  ►  23:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! I was greatly saddened to hear of your leave of absence.  Thanks for your help.  Not thanks for agreeing with me, but for my 'newbie training'. --  Esoteric Rogue  Talk  07:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Created new page
Dear Chzz, I've recently created a new seperate page for the french emperors. (Emperor of France) And was just checking to see if this is ok many thanks. Mackay 86 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. The page looks OK, except it has no references - and they are essential; you have to say where the information comes from, with references to appropriate 'reliable sources'. Here is an example;

Chzz is 98 years old.

He likes tea.

...and then, at the end of the article, you need a section called "References" with the special code " ";

PS
PS, I've also sent you another message to your email. Mackay 86 (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) ✅ (by email)  Chzz  ►  21:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Question/rant
Not sure how much experience you have with this specifically (we've crossed paths on AfC, so I bet you're knowledgeable in WP:BIO), but I was in huggle and saw someone add unsourced info to Barbara Walters (I know, exciting). I reverted it for unsourced info, it was added again, this time by an anon, reverted, added again, and to avoid stepping over my feet into 3RR, I stopped, found the source and refed it myself. Sorry to bother you with it, but I was wondering if you had...suggestions, I guess, for things like this. I see it all the time in huggle (usually more dubious information), but I don't want to cross a line into edit warring (or just biting newcomers). I just wish people would find sources :/ avs5221 (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 3RR does not apply to libelous stuff, but I suppose this isn't? It doesn't look contentious. So, the only thing I'd have done differently is, I would have used warning templates. 1st time I would've welcomed and cautioned Mrags89, for adding unsourced info. When the IP added it, I'd also have warned with L2 or 3, and perhaps tried to talk to them on that talk page. When they added it yet again (second time for the IP, third time overall), I wouldn't have reverted it immediately; I'd again try to discuss on their talk; let it sit there for a while - TIND. If they didn't respond, I'd maybe issue a higher-level warning, and so on.


 * If I'd found a source, as you did, then I'd have done just the same - adding a ref is a great way of solving it. Nice job.


 * Hope this might help, a bit?  Chzz  ►  11:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cuppa Earl Grey was just what I needed :) avs5221 (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. No more wikistalking, promise (I just noticed that up above...I like talkbacks a little too much) avs5221 (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'haunting' thing, above? No trouble at all; I approve of talkback usage. The oppose thing was just a joke from a friendly TPS - and I quite like stalkers!  Chzz  ►  14:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for the kind userpage revert. –davewho2 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
WOW! My favorite editor and one of the best on WP has returned. You were missed. Quite frankly, there are too many editors (including administrators--I could name names) specializing in dogmatism, closemindedness, and bigotry. You are a shining example of their opposite. รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I've actually noticed...you've been busy! Anyway - it's good to be back. Speak soon,  Chzz  ►  06:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
User is asking for follow up. avs5221 (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Angelo Keder now live  Chzz  ►  18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

Bazar de la Charité
I've been bold and moved it to article space (after cutting most of it down to what I can verify myself). Hope you don't mind? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem; hope you'll be cleaning up the AFC header and suchlike?  Chzz  ►  12:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure how . . . --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just this; I'll also make a talk-page and do some other tweaks and stuff, later. No worries,  Chzz  ►  13:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you need to verify offline refs I have access to a few of the facts in some notes. This would make a great addition to DYK if your not already considering this. In the mean time ive added a brief on-line ref.Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rar, good idea; I'll have a look at the article, properly, later. Definitely DYK; I'll bear your kind offer in mind, if the DYK need more proof or something. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have submitted DYK; top of Template_talk:Did_you_know  Chzz  ►  23:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ive made a few corrections to the article to meet the dyk req'ts. The original reference used in the hook (offline ref) was in error. Ive also suggested a modified hook. Please see if you perfer that one. Other than that the article looks good.Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks grr8. Ive added the image of sophia to the article if you want it in the lead as its one of the dyk req'ts. Feel free to adjust accordingly (been bold about this). Happy editing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No complaints from me.  Chzz  ►  08:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jade Starr Article
Hey there, and thank you for the help! The other moderator said the article qualifies, I just needed to fix the references. Thought I did. But with your help I think I got it right this time. I got rid of all things you told me too. Please take a look and feel free to just delete the references you feel don't meet the standards. Thanks! Phantomcowboy (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Back?
Possibly.  Chzz  ►  18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Face-smile.svg &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalker! Am trying to work out if there's a way forward; for now, I will prob just carry on as I used to. I did nothing wrong; things spiraled out of control (As these things do). Whether I can somehow, eventually, persuade people that I am trustworthy remains to be seen, but I try to be optimistic. Cheers for the wb, see you around, I'm sure.  Chzz  ►  19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, old friend! Hopefully we'll see more of you about once more. My advice would be to move on from the past, and get back to helping at the Help Desk, and AFC. I'm not going to comment on anything else, but leave you with a comment Gordonrox24 left on your RfA talkpage (practically the last message from anyone on the RfA): Even with the facts presented, I don't think that anybody can doubt that Chzz's work and knowledge is very valuable, and it would be a shame to lose it. I hope that Chzz will recover from this, and I really really hope that he will be back to assist me when I have troubles, and when all editors have troubles, sometime soon - and to say that I back this sentiment 100%. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sincere thanks for the sentiments, Phantomsteve. My hope is, to a) do good stuff for a while, and b) explain all the problems, as fully as necessary, so that one day I can get the reassurance of the community. I intend to get back to those who left messages for me, and explainify the bad stuff that happened. Thanks for the support; it means a lot.  Chzz  ►  21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)



Solid ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 23:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A single word can mean a lot. /me grabs a tissue.  Chzz  ►  23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also glad to see you back!!-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ta. If I'm a good BoyGirl for a while, can I haz cheezburgr?  Chzz  ►  23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! -- Mike moral  ♪♫  23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers Mike; I appreciate it; it's been difficult to reconcile, but, I want to prove that I did no wrong; I'll do so by adding to t'wiki. Thx.  Chzz  ►  23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back. :) -- &oelig; &trade; 23:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I've never interacted with you, I also welcome you back! Regardless of whether you "prove" yourself or not, it's always been clear that you're an extremely constructive contributor, and Wikipedia is much better off with your return. Cheers! -M.Nelson (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Chzz.  — Soap  —  13:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great to see you back. :D Pmlineditor   ∞  14:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was already worried you had left for good. It's great to see you back. Jafeluv (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all above; nice to know I'm wanted :-) Means a lot, actually. I hope that, if I spend a few months doing good stuff, I might have a further shot at RfA - if I can explain things and clear the air with folks.  Chzz  ►  20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. It's always good to see a user come out of retirement. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! Airplaneman  talk 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally. Blurpeace 10:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Chzz. You have helped me a lot in the past and I am really happy you are back! Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  Y o u ' r e b a c k ! ! ! ! !  The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  07:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have you back. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ta!  Chzz  ►  03:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Doc Quintana (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Even More Talkback
Doc Quintana (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell Me What You Think
Doc Quintana (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (Talkback addiction here...)
Doc Quintana (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Creation - Templates
You are badly mistaken.


 * Article_wizard/Additional

Templates are a basic option for creation at AfC

70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Creation - Templates
You are badly mistaken.


 * Article_wizard/Additional

Templates are a basic option for creation at AfC

70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy St.Patrick's Day!
 Happy St.Patrick's Day! Dear Chzz, i want to wish you all the luck you can get on St.Patrick's Day & Remember to wear green so no one will bother to pinch you. ;-) Written by  General  Cheese

Céad Mile Fáilte  Chzz  ►  22:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jade Starr photo
Hey Chzz, added more info about the photo. It was one I took myself of her for her myspace, model mayhem, website, and other public forums. I openly give permission for wiki to use it. It is not copyrighted. thanks. Phantomcowboy (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. OK; I understand; because the image has been used on other websites (and those sites have copyright permissions), we have to be careful. The easiest way to sort it out, I think, is if you could send a specially-worded email with the picture attached. The text is in user:chzz/help/myboilerplate. You just have to fill in the name and date, attach the file, and send that off to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.


 * If you could do that, and let me know, I can sort the rest out - I could mark the picture as awaiting the email, and tie things up when it has been checked. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks again Chzz. I really do appriciate all the help and hard work! Permission form has been signed, dated, photo attached, and sent. Oh, also, the article itself says it needs a finale review. Could you do that if you have a moment? I'd rather you since you are familar with it than some new moderator. Thanks!

Phantomcowboy (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OTRS permission email received, processed, and attached (4632948). Added information to image file, moved to commons, and tagged.


 * Article reviewed.  Chzz  ►  08:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

NanoZip article deprod
I have removed the prod tag from NanoZip, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

See the article's talk page for details.

--Varnav (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do the references added actually mention "NanoZip", or just "Burrows Wheeler Transform" ?  Chzz  ►  22:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They mention algorithms based on the specific implementation of BWT that is used in NanoZip. --Varnav (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for that. Therefore, they do not help establish the notability of the topic; the only current claim to notability is a listing in a chart on compressionratings.com. Do you think that it will be possible to establish notability?  Chzz  ►  22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are more benchmarks and some discussion. As well all claims are verifiable - archiver is available for download and any person is free to test it. I am sure all this is enough to consider article subject notable. --Varnav (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A forum like that isn't a reliable source. I'm not trying to be difficult here, honestly. But to have an article requires "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - and I don't currently see it. If there were a couple of newspaper/magazine articles about it, or something like that, it'd be fine; if not, then the facts can't be verified - that's the core issue.  Chzz  ►  22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Created a reference article
Hi, Chzz I have created another article "but" added references this time see German Emperor redirects are German Emperors, Emperor of Germany, & Emperors of Germany. Hope you like it. Mackay 86 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky prod
Hi ! The template workshop is losing interest  fast now that  there is very  little left to  argue for or against. I have now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that any policy on  its implementation can be established while technical  development  of the template can continue  in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy  bits can be merged  into  them. If you intend to continue to  contribute your ideas to  the development  of the template or its policy of use, and I hope you  will, please consider either adding  your name to the list  of workshop members, or joining  in  with  the policy  discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Creation - Templates
You are badly mistaken.


 * Article_wizard/Additional

Templates are a basic option for creation at AfC

70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tambouras
Hello! Your submission of Tambouras at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed up, I think?  Chzz  ►  00:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible troll
Hey, I've got a possible troll talking to me at my talk. I'm at school right now, so if you are free could you handle it? I'd appreciate it. If (s)he wants to talk to me, tell him/her that I told you to talk to him/her. Thank you! -- Cubs  197  18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep; looks like it is all over, but I will keep an eye out. DFTT!  Chzz  ►  18:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Cubs  197  17:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Hope you didn't mind my removing the warning from their page, and for marking the chat on yours as 'done' - with these sorts of silly argument, it's best to try and stop things ASAP, and that seemed the most expedient way. Any time, my friend...see you around.  Chzz  ►  21:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit, FYI
It’s generally frowned upon to edit someone else’s comments; I just edited yours to correct a Wikilink, I can’t imagine it would be a problem, but I thought I’d let you know. (I intended to post the diff, but I can’t find it – I removed an extra square bracket so the wikilink would work here ) SPhilbrick  T  13:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'm not one of those who jump up in righteous indignation at such edits; I'm grateful. Something that does not change the meaning at all, but just fixes a link - I can't see any problems with that, and especially in a help forum. Very nice of you - and your additional comment was well-considered to. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  19:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Haven't seen your unmistakable signature for a long time. Welcome back!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much!  Chzz  ►  22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey Chzz, Thanks for answering my question so quickly. I have been trying to figure out how to do that for ages! It's cool that some of you out there in wikipedialand will help someone out for nothing in return. Ciao, AJseagull1 (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!!
Thank you, Chzz! I appreciate you. It's very kind of you to go to that page. You are great. Thank you for your kindness. Thank you. Thank you.--Longitudo (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Verfolgter Jude.jpg
(and 'File permission problem' - template messages merged  Chzz  ►  21:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

File:Verfolgter Jude.jpg

IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear.
 * while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.


 * Wow, this was a surprise; that was 2 years ago when I uploaded it! Actually it did have source information and the appropriate copyright tag - just not in the standard, templated format. I've corrected that now. Please be careful with templating regulars though, and be careful of claims that there are things missing, if they are simply not in the normal format. It was easy enough to find it on flickr and check that it actually was OK. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this really free? It's a work of art from 1992... Hekerui (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am certain that you can understand that "From flickr" is a far cry from http://www.flickr.com/photos/44668468@N00/61656651 although now i will be more careful and try to see if i can find the file 1st, but the primary reason i tag is to get your(someones) attention and obtain the source/permission not to delete. And to that end it worked, you were very prompt.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It did not say 'From flickr' - it said, ""Verfolgter Jude" (literally: Hunted Jew), 1992, aluminium cast by Tisa von der Schulenburg in the Jewish Museum Westphalia, Dorsten, From flickr, Attribution; threedots / Daniel Ullrich"  Chzz  ►  08:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding a link to the flickr source is always better then not adding a link that is all a meant by it. "It did not say 'From flickr' - it said, ''Verfolgter Jude' (literally: Hunted Jew), 1992, aluminium cast by Tisa von der Schulenburg in the Jewish Museum Westphalia, Dorsten, From flickr, Attribution; threedots / Daniel Ullrich'" --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; could you possibly clarify your meaning in pasting a copy of the statement I made?  Chzz  ►  09:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was explaining what a meant "From flickr" is a far cry from http://www.flickr.com/photos/44668468@N00/61656651, notice the bold text in the quote ... Museum Westphalia, Dorsten,  From flickr , Attribution; ... i meant that ... Museum Westphalia, Dorsten, http://www.flickr.com/photos/44668468@N00/61656651, Attribution; ... is a better in terms of source. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Way back in 2008, I uploaded that pic, and wrote, "From flickr, Attribution;threedots / Daniel Ullrich". Whilst not ideal, that was enough to prove the attribution; yes, it could have been better, but, I was new back then - so don't bite - I was trying to make Wikipedia better. 2 years on, I fortunately now know enough to fix the problem and clarify the source; not all new users will. A google for flickr jude verfolgter threedots or a search on flickr was all that was needed.  Chzz  ►  10:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Ken Weiss
Hello Chzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ken Weiss has been removed. It was removed by Bronxflash with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Bronxflash before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking to AFD, Articles for deletion/Ken Weiss  Chzz  ►  21:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Balance
BalancePlus is just a desire I have in my wiki work. If there's a company called that I have no connection. Will research name - thought of it innocently, very motivated to work to bring balance to pages on new religious groups, and even old religious groups - though the scholarship already there is stunning.BalancePlus (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent; many thanks for clarifying. Balance is definitely a plus :-) Again, welcome, and if you need any help at all, just ask. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  14:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind welcome! I am having trouble getting referenced info on a page that is controlled by a very experience, but self-promoting wikipedian. Since I am new, I might have made fatal errors, and really really want to add balanced, verifiable facts to a page that is being used to promote an organization that is listed in many sources as a destructive cult. All my edits disappear, the links - gone, and what remains is a recruitment message. Thanks so much for any direction you might provide. If I've been a dick, it was only in the interest of balance.BalancePlus (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sumeriancore
Please explain to me how the article I submitted doesn't explain the signifcance or importance of the subject? I used the Deathcore Wiki as a template for creating the Sumeriancore one, so after submitting the article 5 times I'm essentially tired of fixing one problem then you guys giving me another excuse. 24.99.186.215 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Firstly, please understand that I am 'on your side' - I want to add articles to Wikipedia.
 * The problem, as usual, is that it does not pass the basic criteria - significant coverage in '''reliable sources that are independent.


 * When evaluating 'articles for creation', that is the policy I have to judge by. The consensus is that anonymous users (who have not signed up for a username) cannot create articles. Whenever I accept an 'article for creation', I am effectively making the article under my own user name, so I have to evaluate it using my own judgment. If I think that it would be deleted as not-notable, then I have to decline making it.


 * If you sign up for a free account, you are quite free to just make the article yourself - you may be right, perhaps it wouldn't be deleted.


 * Whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best of luck; please ask for more help if you need it.  Chzz  ►  05:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sumeriancore
Hello, You recently reviewed my article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sumeriancore. I was wondering if you could please explain to me how I failed to explain the significance of the subject at hand, and how it meet criteria for a speedy deletion? I have attempted to submit that article 5 times now I think, and each time I've upgraded it little by little with the help of a few other users like yourself. Up until this point it hasn't met that criteria, and even another user said that he saw no reason why it met such standards. So I was just wondering if you could help me out at all, because I'm at a loss. Thanks, Musicfan0011 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi; perhaps the above message was also from you? Please see the reply, above. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  #

Yes, the above passage was me as well, I simply forgot to sign in before posting. I'm still confused, as you said it needs notable coverage in reliable 3rd party sources...that was my problem initially as well, though after a few submissions I was told that the notability was up to par. Obviously thats not the case, as I still can't seem to submit an article and have it created. I doubt the article will ever live up to Wikipedias "standards". Was worth a shot I guess, though quite a shame that it's this hard to create a simple Wikipedia. Thanks Musicfan0011 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Anna larsson
Hello Chzz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Anna larsson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: international debut made with the Berlin Philharmonic is an assetion of importance, and please don't do A7s after just 3 minutes. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 15:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Harrasment
First of all this person has an obsession with trailing my edits go on the page and ONLY focuses their attention on disrupting the section I have been edited on and takes away sources or misues them to undermine the section. The article after protection had been pretty much not touched until HE started playing the same games again to incite an editing war.Also it's worth noting the section I created in the article is perhaps ONLY part of it that has sources and citations.  Here on the talk board he ONLY focueses attention on my sources and citation when the fact is and when I answer back to justify my edits he doesnt respond or states I am cluterring the page just for me defending myself. 

This is one of the many complaints he has put against me

During my editing he purposely placed these hateful edits of vandalism (In an Article) which were no doubt were directed at me and another user who he is obsessed with (even though proven otherwise) he thinks is my sock. He cannot accept the fact that there are christians who reject the arab label and he is very bitter about this that is why he keeps edit warring with me because does not want to let that information come out. He is also bitter about the title of the article being added Arabic speaking Christians form the lone Arab Christians he wants it changed again. 

When awrongful revert complaint was made against me by Hobit the user openly admitted they were hoping for my block even there was no case against me that I think this is what motivated him to provoke an edit war with me thinking he do that then complain about that then i would be blocked for editing since he admitted that was his inention.However it's partially backfired and he is blocked aswell. You will have to ask Hobit for the archive of that since I seem to have lost where to find the link. but he states there that they could of easily got me blocked if they knew how to wait at the right time.

 They trailed comments I made with another user and accused us both being socks they questioned my baptisim and my religious beliefs as dubious and tried to argue I was not a Christian (in case about sock accounts not my religious beliefs or how I was baptised). Even after this case was proven false they still are now accusing me and the user of being socks of the same this shows how far this person's paranoia towards me is. --♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Answered in copy on user talk page  Chzz  ►  10:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Kapooz (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

SSFOA
Hi Chzz

Thank you for you help at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steven1969/The_Silver_Star_Families_of_America#The_Silver_Star_Service_Flag.2FBanner

I think I have violated the conflict of interest policy since I am the founder of the SSFOA. I have placed this on my user page. I think the story of the Silver Star Service Banner for our wounded needs to be told, but I am not sure I can be objective. ??  You have my sincere apologies  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven1969 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Steven1969 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.


 * No problems at all; hope it gives some guidance. COI doesn't say "no", it says, "be very careful". Feel free to work on a neutral, referenced balanced piece if you want to - you can always ask others to check it over, prior to making it live.  Chzz  ►  22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you my friend Steven1969 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hate to ask my friend

But could you or someone check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steven1969/The_Silver_Star_Families_of_America

Have modified greatly to take into account your concerns

Also any help modifying the page would be appreciated

Thanks and God bless

Steven1969 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "purpose of honoring the combat wounded...etc" - this looks like a direct quotation, so you should put it in quote marks and show the reference to where it is from (presumably, their own website)
 * "As an interesting footnote" - avoid phrasing like this; it's not 'encyclopaedic' - just state the facts in a neutral manner. See WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL - there are probably other parts that need tweaking similarly
 * Usage - this section contains lots of 'facts' that are unreferenced, and may not be neutral. For example, "symbols to remind Americans of the sacrifice" - who says so? Is this opinion, or fact?
 * "they petitioned the states" - who is 'they'? better to say "The SSFOA petitoned..." etc. Also, needs a reference
 * "There is no analogous banner known in other countries." - needs a ref (or removing)
 * "I believe I have a conflict of interest..." - do not write this kind of 'meta-information' on the article itself; if the article goes live, this sort of comment belongs on the discussion page of the article.
 * "See Also" should only list any Wikipedia articles (if there are any, and if they have not been wikilinked within the text). External links should ONLY be in the 'external links' section (or as references).

I hope that helps,  Chzz  ►  04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz

Back to work Steven1969 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well my friend

After a lot of heartache and help from everyone, you especially, I think I am ready. Can you check for me please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steven1969/The_Silver_Star_Families_of_America#The_Silver_Star_Service_Flag.2FBanner

Thanks and God bless

Steven1969 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Biodiversity Protection
Dear Chzz, I guess I lust conection with you, Please let me know what I have to do next? Regards Iveta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iveta seidlova (talk • contribs) 02:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global Biodiversity Protection

When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.

I will follow up on the permission issue, and tag the article with an 'OTRS ticket number' to link it to your email. I will sort that out; no need for any further action on that part.

The article, however, lacks sources. Independent reliable sources are required to establish a subject's notability. If your submission does not include reliable sources, such as books, magazines, or news articles, it will be declined Please note that websites like Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter, are not reliable sources.

  Click "show" to learn how to properly cite sources using footnotes. A "source", also called a "reference", should generally be "cited" using footnotes. Wikipedia uses a special feature to automatically generate footnotes with the help of two "tags",  and. Anything placed between the two tags will generate a footnote, which appears in the text as [1]. This method of using "inline citations" is useful because it allows the reader to easily see which source supports which statement. To cite a source using this method, you need two parts:
 * The two tags:
 * A "References" section at the end of the article with the code, which is able to generate a list of footnotes based on what is placed between the two tags:

Refs Q
Hi Chzz, thankyou for taking time with me today for my article, can you just let me know what exactly you nees as ref. to finish this work we did today or you thing I need more time to comlit all wikipedia needs. Kigne Regards (Iveta seidlova (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)). Iveta Seidlova —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iveta seidlova (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Good evening, I thing I understand what you mean, it looks to me like I want to fly faster then the wind. Please I need liter time to get good references, next month we will have new press article in Travelfocus magazine in CZ. and one in French papers Toogezer this spring, we preparing new actions for enviroment and yesterday I also send partner demand to 2010 international year of biodiversity, but thit I let you know as soon all is done, I gusee the best solution is to stay in touch with you and as soon you juge my ONG ready we will make it official on wiki. In the mean time I will keep you inform and sending you references  for this article. Best regards (Iveta seidlova (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)).
 * Please remember to 'sign' at the end of your messages, with ~.
 * As above - the article would need several references to reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, etc - to show that it is notable. A core policy of Wikipedia is, that the information in articles should be verifiable - that is, the reader should be able to 'check the facts'. For examples, please look at any good article, and see the references they use. Best,  Chzz  ►  04:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible - there is no deadline. The page will remain, probably changed to 'declined' - but it can be resurrected at any time, when sources become available. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Verfolgter Jude.jpg
File:Verfolgter Jude.jpg was nominated for deletion at. Regards Hekerui (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Templates, Steinway and Warrants
I'd be grateful if you could have a look at the following templates: Template:Purveyors to the Russian imperial family and Template:Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court. As it is normal in templates, no sources are provided. Royal Warrant and Royal Warrant have also no sources (I researched and I couldn’t find anything). Both templates have been started by a SPE and I think they might have been created just to include info about the brand this user promotes. Thank you very much for your advice.--Karljoos (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm - possibly. The account ( is blocked from editing, for a few more days; you could try asking them about it, on their talk page, perhaps - when they return. You could nominate the templates in Templates for discussion, and explain why, and of course, you can remove any unsourced information - or tag it as and see if it can be fixed, for a while (per WP:V. Hope that helps.   Chzz  ►  05:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
PleaseStand (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on South Jordan, Utah
THANK YOU so much for your feedback on the South Jordan page. It was very helpful and informative. I learned several things that I didn't know, plus questions I had while writing the article were answered.

I had a chuckle because several of your suggestions came from things written by other people and my first thought was, "You mean people write as bad as me?" But the point was taken... never assume and make sure the styles match between editors.

A couple of questions:

1) "You might consider adding page references to the book sources - it would certainly help with ref 13, for example. There are a few ways to do it - I quite like harvard-style references..."  Actually ref 13 was given with a page number as it was a journal reference, but it does lead to another reference, ref 10.  Ref 10 is a book source and its the only book source in the article with multiple references to multiple pages.  With being only one book, do I follow your style and add a bibliography section containing just the one book or do I just split out ref 10 into four individual references?


 * Easier to show you by example; I will knock up a demo, ASAP, and let you know.  Chzz  ►  00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

2) "moving his family along the Jordan River, at about 9000 South - I do not know what '9000 South' is (and later, 12500 South) - presumably it is some kind of mapping region - could this be clarified?"  Hmmmmm, I could state in the Transportation section about the grid system that the entire Salt Lake Valley (btw, almost all Mormon settled towns are on a grid system), but would that be too far along in the article because the above quote is toward the beginning of the article?Bgwhite (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still, honestly, don't know what '9000 South' is - and I couldn't find out on the web. The only reference I found was the use of it in Utah State Route 209, but that doesn't elaborate either. Is it a street name? If so, maybe that link clarifies it, and you could, the first time you use the system, put something like "...at about 9000 South ..." - or similar; I don't know if that's the best link - but, a wikilink would clarify it. After that first clarification, just use it.  Chzz  ►  00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: I have found (and made an anchor) to what I think is a more appropriate link; Street or road name. Would that work?  Chzz  ►  01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I also found this link; Salt Lake City. But your link makes more sense (Indiana? I knew some towns in Illinois used the same grid system, but Indiana?  I learned something new) .  Looking around at wiki pages for other towns in the Salt Lake Valley, I found the same problem on every page.  Hmmm, a wiki page describing the grid system needs to be made.  How would I introduce the link the first time 9000 South is mentioned?Bgwhite (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whichever link you think is best; I would introduce it with the link on the added word "grid reference" before the 9000, linked as appropriate:

...along the Jordan River, near grid reference 9000 South, and lived in a dugout...

Update 2: I have tried to write a guide to Harvard-style citations, in User:Chzz/help/harvard - Bgwhite, I'd be grateful if you could try it out, and see if it makes sense. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It looks like you have at least 3 books already - "The Fremont", "Exploring the Fremont", "The Shoshoni Frontier and the Bear River Massacre" and "South Jordan" (Utah History Encyclopedia), I think?  Chzz  ►  02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I updated the page to reflect: "grid system", using Harvard-style reference for the references to the book "Of dugouts and Spires" and added a wikilink to Redwood Road.

The 'book' "South Jordan" (Utah History Encyclopedia) is sort of a web based encyclopedia. The other two books, I only reference one page. Do I convert all books to Harvard style or keep as is? Bgwhite (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. I fixed a minor problem with the harv thing; the spaces in the meant that the link from the ref entry to the biblio entry didn't work; it's finicky.
 * I would suggest converting all the books - that's what I've seen in other articles. It's nice to have all the detailed book listings in one place. You might not want to use the Harvard thing at all - as I said, it works best on articles with more books; having said that, as an article approaches FA, it tends to end up with more and more book refs. Anyway, it's a very good thing to know.
 * Have you put in for a peer review yet? It takes ages for 'em to get done.  Chzz  ►  02:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dang, I forgot to Thank You for the nicest complement you gave... about submitting it to peer review and moving to good article status. That really gave a boost to my ego.  I need to add a couple of things to the twentieth century history section and then will submit to peer review.Bgwhite (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

saying hello and thanks
thanks for your help. Sysecho01 (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm practicing now. Still not sure about them but trying.  Went to chat tonite and some other person helped out a bit and showed me this link Inline citations  I think I'm going to bang my head against the wall now.  :)

Sysecho01 (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will answer on user talk  Chzz  ►  07:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

TalkToVu
Hi! Thanks for helping me. Wow, everything here is so open. I like it! TalkToVu (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, you left me a message - great, it worked. I'm now going to show you another trick - I'm replying right here, underneath your message, and I have indented my reply, by putting a colon at the start. However, if I only wrote to you here, you might not notice - so, I will also put a note on your own talk page, to let you know that I have replied here.


 * Because I am about to write a note on your talk page, it will alert you and say 'you have new messages'.


 * Hope that makes sense?  Chzz  ►  05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thanks! TalkToVu (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

BM
Thanks for the good wishes. Well, in perfect parallel with your "callous attempt to get on my good side, I would like to be on yours - I'm definitely going to be trying to pull in as many wiki-favours as possible during my time there! So, anyone who's interested in working on BM related material between now and July is certainly someone I'm looking to be wiki-friendly too :-) Certainly, I'd be most happy to research whatever you're looking for. I will probably also be trying to promulgate a "wishlist" of articles that the BM would most like to see improved (whilst avoiding things that would fall foul of CoI) so I'd really appreciate help with that too. Obviously, I want to see BM-related articles improved for their own sake, but I also want to make sure this project is a success (both in terms of quality, quantity, publicity, number of people involved) so that other cultural organisations around the world start wanting to collaborate with Wikipedia. Can you imagine how awesome it would be if GLAMs around the world started to compete with each other to bring Wikipedians in-house?! This is a crucial test-case on that road. Witty Lama 02:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. It won't be long before not only museums, but all sizable orgs, will have a job-title of 'resident Wikipedian'.  Chzz  ►  02:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ACC
How do people seem to grab ACC requests so quickly? Seriously, I haven't seen one available yet. avs5221 (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Coz there are about 6 ACCers sitting in here, and it alerts us.  Chzz  ►  11:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also the fact that several hours can go between requests! It averages about 1 accounts created per hour - but they aren't that evenly spaced out! (In the last 7 days, 171 were created in 168 hours, with 19 different editors creating them; in the last 28 days, 646 accounts were created in 672 hours by 37 editors). I should point out that not all requests are created, but I don't have the figures for unsuccessful requests! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So that's the secret. I'm trying to figure out IRC now (never used). The tutorials are...not helpful :) Thanks, guys. By the way, Phantom, thanks for the heads up on flagged users. Just wondering though, there's nothing in the documentation about the flagged user section. Where's info on it? avs5221 (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I think, this week, there have been a few new faces - so I guess they've been keen to get requests  Chzz  ►  12:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the section about "similar names" - I've amended the section heading to include "Flagged Users"! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pedro José Triest
Hi. I appreciate your efforts reverting, but, in that case, it wasn't quite appropriate. The story was,


 * A user submitted an article for creation in Italian. I declined it; we cannot accept foreign submissions


 * They blanked it. Fine - it was 'their' submission.


 * You reverted, and warned them.

So,


 * I removed the warning ASAP


 * I tagged it as, and got it deleted.

Hope that is all OK. I do appreciate what you tried to do, no problem; just wanted to explain. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course that is all ok, it is exactly what should have been done in the first place. Most times i would have tagged as such myself, but it seems i missed it this time. Since your the second person who notifies me of an error within minutes, i think i better get a 30-60 minute break and a nice cup of coffee refill my attention span and to prevent more errors from occurring. Might be a good idea to take a break regardless, as i have been busy reverting 6 hours strait now - kinda hard to stop if you notice to little people are busy on patrol. :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep; been there, done that! Keep up the good stuff, but remember to breathe :-) Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'll patrol for about an hour.  Chzz  ►  14:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Chzz - drinking coffee is always more relaxing if your not in a hurry (Though i really shouldn't be, less i want to burn out. It seems i finally handled every talk page issue i had, so it is time to step back and get a nice, LARGE cup of coffee. Good luck on patrol, and with the best wishes, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Patty Loveless
Thanks for the help. To answer your question, I decided to head to bed, and removed the tag because I thought I wouldn't be able to respond. But so much for good plans and decent bedtimes......

Appreciate the fix. Sure had me stumped. Best regards. --Manway (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Billie Jean black sequin jacket

 * Articles for deletion/Billie Jean black sequin jacket

Orphaned non-free media (File:Global_Biodiversity_Protection.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Global_Biodiversity_Protection.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. (...snipped template...) Melesse (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AFC under review, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Global_Biodiversity_Protection  Chzz  ►  05:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AFC will await sources in approx. 1 month, so asked for deletion until then. Gone.  Chzz  ►  21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

Alignment
Hello Chzz, Thanks for the guidance and help on this. Resizing the images in Shri Gaudapadacharya Mutt did not help, but placing the pics at other places did help. I will look into reducing the number of pictures. As I am new and focussed on only 2 wiki pages not quite familiar with lot of things. Can you tell me how to reply the messages from others in my talk page, should I go to their talk page and reply (Like I did now) or I should be doing it in my talk page itself..? Best Regards, --Ashok Prabhu (Talk) 16:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to have helped. The resizing saves problems with people on different screen sizes, and suchlike; we have to remember that some people browse on mobile devices. The rule of thumb is, to keep formatting as simple as possible - thus, the user can configure the appearance of pages. For example, it is possible to choose your own size of thumbnails in the preferences; specifying a px overrules that - so, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, it is preferable not to specify a size. Compelling reasons being, for example, a diagram that looks crazy when so small, or a very wide image.


 * Re. talk pages; opinions do vary on this, but most people (including myself) find that it is best to reply directly below the original comment, indented - just as I have here. This keeps the conversation thread in one place. Additionally, it is worth putting a quick note on the talk page of the other person, to let them know that you have responded; by doing that, they will get the big orange 'you have new messages' box. You can do this easily with the template - just put "  " on their talk page, and they'll get a note just like the one I used on yours to tell you about this reply.


 * Best,  Chzz  ►  16:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I got to know about the Server problems through media today.--Ashok Prabhu (Talk) 12:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How are you doing?
I am fine. How about you? --Thebirdlover (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's jacket
Fixed the AfD, give me a shout if you want anything userfying. Black Kite 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Biodiversity Protection
Good evening Chzz, I hope you are fine, here is new referance http://www.cbd.int/2010/partners/ Global B. Protection become oficial Partner of 2010 International Year of Biodiversity. next mont I will send you some prss article. Cordially Iveta Seidlova (Iveta seidlova (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)).


 * I have added a note of this source to the article, and await further replies. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

✅ Thank you Iveta seidlova(Iveta seidlova (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)).

Comments posted in Archive 19
He buddy

Am I ready to go on the Silver Star Families of America?

I do not want to go live unless you say so.

Thanks!

Steven1969 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chzz

I take it you edited the Silver Star Families of America page. THANK YOU

And I wish I knew how you did some of those things.

Ok

Will move to live

Thanks so much my friend

Steven1969 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh   Chzz?

I changed the name to the Silver Star Families of America and then hit move

Kicked my clear off site

And now I cant find the article

Sigh

Steven1969 (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

Found it Chzz.

Steven1969 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there.


 * I'm sorry that I didn't respond before, but I didn't see your messages, because you had put them in the archive file. Please don't edit archives - instead, post any new questions here on my talk page. I moved your comments here. I'm sorry, it was my fault - I didn't explain clearly; I wanted to give you the link to the archive, so that you would know the messages had not disappeared from here - but the idea of archives is, they shouldn't be edited. Anyway, not a probelm at a ll - it just meant that I didn't spot your questions, so didn't respond until now.


 * The Silver Star Families of America looks OK; I'll tidy things up a bit. Note, you can see any edits that anyone makes by clicking on the 'history' tab on the article - see Help:Page history. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my friend

Still learning

And reading all the manuals are   something else.

Thank you for your help.

God bless

Steven1969 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem at all; I wasn't complaining - just advising; you're doing fine. Plenty of help when you need it; I know, the learning curve is steep. We try to keep things simple, but, with articles, and  users, it gets tricky! And those numbers are changing all the time; if you refresh the page, I expect it'll have increased.


 * Perhaps the best overall manual is WP:TMM - the 'missing manual'. You can get to it any time, by entering "WP:TMM" in the Wikipedia search box. Best of luck, and please ask for anything, any time.  Chzz  ►  19:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes    That is the one I am working on now. Makes an old mans head hurt.

Smile

After I learn a few more things do you recommend the "new article patrol?"

Steven1969 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(Replying on user talk page)  Chzz  ►  09:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sumeriancore
Hello, I thought you said that it would probably help to submit the article while logged in as it probably wouldn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Though after logging in and submitting, I received the exact same message as to why it could not be created. It seems like everyone on here is always quick to delete something but never quick to respond to any messages asking for help. Not saying thats the case for you, but thus far it seems to be a trend. Musicfan0011 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my responses, which are now in User_talk:Chzz/Archive_19 - I said "I have to evaluate it using my own judgment. If I think that it would be deleted as not-notable, then I have to decline making it. If you sign up for a free account, - you may be right, perhaps it wouldn't be deleted."


 * In other words - I rejected the WP:AFC, because, in my opinion, it did not meet the requirements. Two other AFC reviewers have also declined the previous submissions, for similar reasons.


 * You resubmitted the article to AFC without any changes at all; therefore, the decline and the opinion given previously still applied.


 * Now that you have an account, you can make articles - you don't have to use the AFC process. If you think that it meets requirements, you are free to create it as a live article. would not recommend doing so, because I think it might be deleted as not meeting the notability requirements - but it is your choice; nobody is 'in charge' here. The 'standards' that you referred to are policies and guidelines, decided by everyone, through discussion; everything is decided through consensus.


 * I'm sorry if others have not been quick to respond to messages; I certainly always try hard to respond in a timely way, to the best of my ability. We're all just volunteers, all here with the same intentions - to improve Wikipedia.  Chzz  ►  08:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And how do I go about creating the article instead of submitting it? Also, everyone just keeps stating that its non-notable, but how can Deathcore qualify as a notable article when mine does not? I used the Deathcore wikipedia as a template for making the Sumeriancore one, and the references included are nearly identical in nature as well as notability. I could understand all the trouble I've had to go through to create it had this article been about something a little heavier in clout, such as: President Obama, The Boston Tea Party, or The Healthcare Reform Bill, but I'm not. Its a simple article on a simple sub-genre of music that has recently became very wide-spread and would benefit from a standardized Wikipedia for the followers to view. Musicfan0011 (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As a registered user, you can create a live article by going to a non-existent page and clicking the link when it says, You may create the page "Article Name".... You can also move pages, so you could move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sumeriancore to Sumeriancore if you wanted, remove the 'Article for creation' headers, and tidy it up - that's all we do, when we 'approve' a page.


 * Note, you could do that, and maybe it would be fine, maybe it would be deleted; as I said, I personally think it might have problems with notability.


 * The fact that another similar article exists is never a good argument in deletion discussions - see WP:OTHERSTUFF; we know that there are lots of articles on Wikipedia that ought to be fixed or deleted, and we're all working on that; many older articles were made when the standards were different. For the purposes of the 'articles for creation' process, reviewers (such as myself) have to weigh up an article using the current policies and guidelines, and make an assessment.


 * The present article on Deathcore certainly needs work - however, I would certainly think that it is 'notable' in Wikipedia terms, and therefore that a satisfactory article on the subject could exist - and that is the criteria, not the present content. As a simple comparison, I note that "Deathcore" has over 8 million Google hits, whereas "Sumeriancore" has 8,000. Quite a difference.


 * I do understand your complaint, and I do sympathize - I want to make Wikipedia better too. Making an article on something 'with more clout' would actually be simpler, because it would be easier to show its notability. I'm sorry if I have not been able to give the answers that you would like to hear, but I hope that I have at least provided you with answers that explain. Best,  Chzz  ►  15:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue the article into existence with you, just so you know. When I used Deathcore as an example I was trying to gain an understanding of how I was lacking when the two articles and references included are similar. When you say that the Sumeriancore article is 'non-notable', what exactly do you mean? For example, are you saying that none of the references/citations included link to ANY shred of notability? Or that there is simply not enough examples of notability provided? Pointing out the unusable material would greatly assist me in creating a better article. I'm asking because if this is the case I could then take the time to find more usable references that could possibly bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. I seem to just have a problem understanding the vague explanation of it not being notable, or not explaining the significance. Also, the Google quote shouldn't really hold any weight, as many Wikipedia articles bring up a broad range of hits on Google. I'm sure Deathcore didn't begin its life with 8,000,000 hits on Google. I do appreciate all the help you've given me so far. Thanks for being so quick to reply as well. Musicfan0011 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In order to have an article on Wikipedia, the subject must meet the notability guidelines. The simplest, most important one is the general notability guideline, which says a subject needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That carefully-worded phrase explains quite a lot;


 * Significant coverage - such as, a number of news articles about the article topic - not passing mentions


 * Reliable sources - well, this is defined in some detail in WP:RS, but the essence of it is - something that is generally trusted - such as the BBC, CNN, The New York Times. Books are good, too. Blog-sites are rarely reliable.


 * Independent - we don't use primary sources, such as the persons own website, or their publishers/labels website, or anything like that. We avoid press-releases. We want secondary coverage - other people independently writing about the subject.


 * As a rough guide/idea of it, we would hope to see at least 3 newspaper articles, in mainstream press, which have the subject of the article in the title.  Chzz  ►  02:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, then you were completely right about Deathcore needing a revamping, because my sources and the sources in those are nearly indetical. Most sub-genres are not going to get coverage on CNN, or BBC, or anything like that. Especially being the kind of sub-genre that they are anyways, where most of the mainstream world disagrees with the style of music in general. Or doesn't understand it so they automatically dislike it. Thanks for your time again. Musicfan0011 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem; it's a frequent misconception, that other articles can be used in support of a new one - we even have a page about it, WP:OTHERSTUFF. When writing an article, I advise users to find appropriate examples of similar articles within our good articles, as these are more likely to be well-formatted. Best,  Chzz  ►  21:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

J. Reeta Jones
Just a quick note to let you know your prod was removed from this article. I suspect it would probably be deleted at AfD and will take it there myself if I find time to do a good faith search beforehand. Feel free to take it to AfD yourself if I haven't already done so. I'll drop you a note here in the unlikely event that I do a search and find her notable. Dpmuk (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone beat us to it - Articles for deletion/J. Reeta Jones. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Fetchcomm suggested that you adopt me. Are you going to? --Thebirdlover (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't do the official 'adoption' thing; however, I am always willing to answer questions. For general help, the is the best idea - because that allows any available helper to advise. If you do want to ask me specifically anything, then feel free to ask it here on my talk. Best,   Chzz  ►  02:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Elvis
Thank you so very much! ElvisDitto (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hello .. still trying to figure out Wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RahulJVK (talk • contribs) 10:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Shane Towell Page
Hi sorry bout that buit I don't know how to delete pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migitgem2009 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pikaba article - need  your help on how to rewrite this
Hi Please help me to rewrite the article in that way to be submitted successfully. Thank you Jenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niazza (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Answering on user talk page  Chzz  ►  06:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yummy Cookies
 Thebirdlover has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Thebirdlover (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Nicol David
Hiya, thank you for your willingness to help reviewing the above article. I really appreciate your kindness. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 02:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hiya, I've done some update, needing you to re-review it Talk:Nicol David/GA1 (: Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 11:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, great, thanks. I want to work on the 'past tense' thing, and then I will read over the changes you've made, and comment more. Hopefully within 6 hours of now. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problemo Chzz, I am the one who should thank you. You did a great job in reviewing the article. Thanks a lot. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Important note to self As of today, user has addressed issues raised - I need to copyedit and review the whole doc, ASAP  Chzz ''' ►  06:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heya, I've just done the corrections you asked me to do. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heya again Chzz, can you please view my replies on the GA talkpage; having trouble to understand some of the review. Thank you. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Passed as GA.  Chzz  ►  13:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC) ✅

Driveby idle query
Hi Chzz - just wondering whether you meant to transclude your userpage onto User talk:Shawnhelene with this edit? (Or am I misunderstanding what happened there?) Gonzonoir (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is what happened. I expect Chzz has a personal welcome template like I do, but as he has zillions of userpages, I'm not going to look for it! I've undone his edit, as I don't want to alarm the editor with a huge amount of confusing stuff! Ged  UK  15:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I expected it'd be something like that, but thought I'd check rather than reverting myself - ta! Gonzonoir (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Spot on, Ged. Dunno how I made that cock-up, but oh well, first time it's happened out of >1000 welcomes! And of course it'd be the one time I was actually offline for a few hours. Should've been user:chzz/w - added now. Thanks both!  Chzz  ►  06:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cock-ups I've made include G7ing an article I was trying to take to GAN, so I'd consider this one very minor ;) Gonzonoir (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help!
Hi, Chzz! The user wrote it again. It's harassment, isn't it? Please help!--Longitudo (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. It's better to ignore a typo there? It's also unpleasant for me.--Longitudo (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Longitudo (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
PS Hmm. what a useful but--- Haruth (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike (I'm assuming it was Mike), you have been of real help with regard to the drawings but the only Birch article I can find is the old one
Problem in locating the new Article wnich has a name quite similar to the old version

Thus in User:HeZimmerman/Birch I find only the earlier version which has only about a quarter of the material.

I put the new article in today (March 28)and requested that it go in User:Hezimmerman. I seemed to find it. It has lost all of the six drawings which I had uploaded and which you found in Wiki Commons.

Thus, I need to find the new article. That may be tricky since it has a title about the Birch Reduction. The new title is "The Birch Reduction, Mechanistic and Historical Aspects" which is different than the old one. But the new one is missing drawings and, I'm guessing that the new one doesn't have the one table formatted while the old article has the table formatted.

When I did a "save" on the new article, it disappeared and since then I can't locate it.

There is some advantage to keeping the old one until the new one is properly fixed up Thus the Table was tricky to format on the old one, and I could just copy and paste the table as a simple way to get it into the new one formatted properly.

Incidentally, there is one article on the Birch Reduction in Wikipedia. As an organic chemist who if quite familiar with the subject I found it distressingly bad. But I don't want to get the fellow who wrote it annoyed. Still, the errors I have found In quotes are (My comment in italics":

WRONG: "begins at the ipso carbon to yield a 1,4-cyclohexadiene with the carboxylic acid on the 3 position." [Doesn’t begin at the ipso carbon] [ Not the 3 position] "Since the COOH is an electron withdrawing group, the radical anion on the ipso carbon is stabilized by resonance structures. 'The regioselectivity may also be described in terms of SOMO of the radical anion: the SOMO has its largest value at the ipso carbon because of the inductive effect of the electron-withdrawing COOH." ''[Doesn’t follow. The SOMO is not controlling] [In MO 6, SOMO the highest density is Carbon 4 not 1].'' In substituted aromatic compounds an electron-withdrawing substituent, such as a carboxylic acid,[13] stabilizes a carbanion and the least-substituted olefin is generated. [The formation of the less substituted double bond is not due to an electron-withdrawing group but to the high electron densities at both Carbons 1 and 4]. "With an electron-donating substituent the opposite effect is obtained.[14] The reaction produces more of the less thermodynamically stable non-conjugated 1,4-addition product than the more stable conjugated 1,3-diene because the largest orbital coefficient of the HOMO of the conjugated pentadienyl anion intermediate is on the central carbon atom." [MO 5 is not controlling, it is the total electron density which is]MISLEADING "In the presence of an alkyl halide the carbanion can also undergo nucleophilic substitution with carbon-carbon bond formation." [A Carbanion is not susceptible to nucleophic attach and the carbon is the nucleophile]

Howard E. Zimmerman 22:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)


 * Howard, have you taken a look at your contribs? See Special:Contributions. And perhaps this will help you find you commons images. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Answered over IRC and on user talk page  Chzz  ►  02:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

DYK nomination of Tambouras
Hello! Your submission of Tambouras at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Accidentally editing on behalf of a banned user
I did this revert. If you want to put it back because you believe it to be good material, I have no problem with that, but I suspect you didn't realize it was Brexx.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. How could I know that was a banned user? I still cannot tell; they're not blocked, and have no messages about it. I checked who it was (and added ) - their userpage does not exist, and their talk-page didn't, so I 'welcomed' them.


 * Regarding the edit itself, I do not mind whether it stands or not - but, please, could you add some info on why, on the talk page (Talk:Telephone_(song)).


 * I'm not complaining here, just seeking clarification. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

BUMP  Chzz  ►  07:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

JK Amps article
Hope things are going well for you. Kind of an amazing job you do on Wikipedia. Interesting. Anyway, other than appearing to have too many references :-) I think the article looks better - more like the standard. I would appreciate your input.  the username is Jwkelley, but I have asked to have it changed to Musant.  I don't know when or if that will happen.  Thank you,

musant 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkelley (talk • contribs)


 * When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.


 * Great; I've moved it; it's now a live article - Jim Kelley Amplifiers


 * Please ask if you need any more help!  Chzz  ►  19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the expert advice, Chzz. I really need it. And I thought I did sign with four tildes. Does it have to be on the same line or something? signature follows -> musant 20:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musant (talk • contribs)


 * Hm - seems to be failing to sign, for some reason; could you click on 'my preferences' (at the top), and scroll down to the 'signature' box, remove anything in that box so that it is empty, and check that the 'sign my name exactly as shown' is not checked. That will, hopefully, fix it.  Chzz  ►  21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
Thank you. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 14:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank-you for the information about welcoming people. So sorry it didn't work well. I feel terrible. I will try better next time. Thank-you again.Percyfangirl44 (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem at all; I just wanted to help. You might want to join the Welcoming committee - there is more help there too.


 * Cheers!  Chzz  ►  03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Birch Reduction
The reason I logged off of the talk page was that I thought you had said that you were stopping; my guess was that you are on the East Coast. But even for me, since I have to get up at 6:00 AM Monday in the Mid-West, I need to quit at this time.

BUT, despite putting the file names in carefully and cutting and pasting the form of the file copy request (i.e.   etc      I was not able to copy the last three files (for Figures 1, 2 3). I tried several times and cannot see what the difference between the file request for the first three drawings which did work and these three which did not.

If you can see what I did wrong, I would appreciate that.

ALSO, I am indebted to you for showing me how the referencing should be done.

I think I should get the drawings done first.

Let me mention that I am still non-Emeritus unretired and kept reasonably busy during the week (Saturday afternoons also). But I do want to get this article completed and can work on it off and on.

I've mentioned before that the only Birch article in Wikipedia is a mess! This is a field in which I am expert and can recognize miserable errors. That was one motivation for my hard work.

Perhaps this is not the place for giving examples of real errors in the Birch article already in Main Wikipedia, but I'll give some examples: (moved examples here to archive; see below  Chzz  ►  09:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)) ) Howard E. Zimmerman 02:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, I'm in the UK - England - so it's about 04:30 as I write this.


 * You had written the names as;


 * File:(4) Birch-Mechs O&M.gif instead of File:Fig 1 Birch-Mechs O&M.gif
 * File:(5) Birch-Benzoic Mech.gif instead of File:Fig 2 Birch-Benzoic Mech.gif
 * File:(6) Cyclohexadienyl-Anion.gif instead of File:Fig 3 Cyclohexadienyl-Anion.gif


 * Note that, above, the names on the left are red - they do not exist. The filenames that you used, when you uploaded, are the ones shown on the right, which do exist. These are the names I listed on your talk page. The actual names contain the numbers in brackets. Those are the names that you chose when uploading, so that is the name of the picture.


 * I have fixed the names of the three pictures, in User:Hezimmerman/Birch reduction.


 * Re. suggestions for the existing article - the best thing would be, just fix them - see WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. If necessary, discuss them on Talk:Birch reduction - but often, it is easier just to edit.


 * Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)



The three figures seem to be properly in but two of them appear only as small drawings which seem to be separate
Thanks for fixing up the names of the three Figures (Figures 1,2 AND 3)

But for some reason two of the Figures did not appear the same as the other drawings but are small insertions which seem separate. On clicking on them they become full screen.

With you in England you must be tired from working in the very late hours. But I appreciate the help.

The one Figure which did appear properly seems slightly too large. I wonder what the best way is to make is slightly smaller. I can try a few things.

It is early morning here and I need to get ready for work.

Best wishes,

Howard Zimmerman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, so, there are two ways of showing pictures - either just as a plain old picture, or as a 'thumbnail'. The first one here is a simple, easy picture. Just;

Notice, I have deliberately picked a small image - the original is just 31 × 41 pixels. The above code displays it at its original size; if it was a photograph of e.g. 3000x3000, then it you would only be seeing a bit of it, and it would take up my entire talk page. To avoid that problem, we can specify the size;



...so, notice the 2nd one is smaller. I could specify bigger, and it'd be stretched, like this one;

...but, we hate specifying sizes. Wikipedia is supposed to be simple - easy to view on all kinds of machines, including portable devices. In almost every case, in articles, we do not specify a fixed size. Instead, we make it into a 'thumbnail', with a caption. The 'thumb' option automatically sizes the picture, and puts a box around it. The size of thumbnails can be chosen by the reader - it is an option in your preferences. In this way, we can show huge pictures in an article, and not have to worry about different sized screens and things; they'll all see it in a reasonable size, and they can click it to get the detailed view. Like this nice picture of a castle. The code for this one is;

The text 'wraps around' the box automatically, and everything is cool.

I can see this will be challenging, for the type of article that you are writing. I recommend that, where at all possible, you do use the 'thumb' option.

If you force the size of images, then they might look OK on your machine, but not on others - they might well appear in different places, because of different text sizes, and that might make it very hard to follow. If you use the 'thumb' option, and a caption, you can refer to the caption in the text.

Please have a look at the Picture tutorial, and also perhaps consult Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing. I hope this helps, and I hope it is not too confusing. There are no 'hard and fast rules', so do what you think appropriate; somebody can always come along and improve it later. Best,  Chzz  ►  17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

From Howard Zimmerman
It is just after lunch-time here. With you being up so late, I'm surprised that you are corresponding again. But it is helpful.

I read all of your information and checked the two sites on drawing you mentioned.

I am guessing that the small inserted pictures came from the use of Thumbnail when copying the files in. I can check this in my user space.

But it isn't clear to me how to change from the Thumbnail version to the full picture once the Thumbnail one is in place. Perhaps in just editing, changing the filename and omitting the Thumbnail would do that.

For my chemical drawings, the Thumbnail versions are not ideal since one had to go back and forth from the text and the drawing to digest the chemical meaning. So, I guess I would prefer to convert the Thumbnail version to the full ones.

The same question arise about the picture quality using the examples you gave changing from low to high resolution and reverse. Can this be done once the picture is already copied to an Article? I think I'll need to see exactly how this is done to apply to a drawing already there.

Chzz, I don't know if you are a chemist, an organic chemist. You mentioned earlier that the easiest thing would be to fix up that Birch article already in Wikipedia. The situation is that that Birch article covers only a minor portion of what I have in mine. Completely aside from all the errors and misleading things, after reading that original Birch article one doesn't really have a view of the Birch Reduction. It deals only with the case of Benzene which is not typical and doesn't give real mechanisms, doesn't explain why the double bonds of product are not conjugated, the regioselectivity of the first protonation step, and has omitted most of the relevant references, and doesn't give a historical view of the controversy and changing views in the chemical literature.

I apologize for giving some things which would make sense mainly to an organic chemist.

But eventually I can get some organic chemists to review the article. First I need to get it in readable form.

Chzz, there was a time when I used to get to England, and the continent, every other summer. My first view of England was in the winter of 1944-45. At the age of 18 I was a tank gunner in Germany in WWII.

I've pratted on to much.

With thanks for all your help,

Howard Howard E. Zimmerman 19:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, removing 'thumb' will work. Here, I have put one thumbnail with a caption, and one non-thumbnail set to at 500px and 'left';


 * I understand that the non-thumbnail will be most appropriate, and that's fine


 * When you either specify a size, or use 'thumb', the system resizes the picture automatically. Mostly that works well; in the case of diagrams with text, it can cause problems though, and you may have to stick to the original size.


 * I am not a chemist, just a layman that dabbles in all kinds of things


 * Re. Birch reduction, all I meant was, if you think something needs changing, just change it. WP:BOLD. If your new article will work well in parallel to the existing one, that's fine. You might consider that, at some point, they could be merged together - thus keeping the work of others (assuming that any is worth keeping).


 * I was going to say, you are probably better off in the Mid-West - but I checked the weather, and it would appear to be about the same as here, around 10 °C. And there we have the classic stereotype - an Englishman talking about the weather!  Chzz  ►  19:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To: Chzz, From: Howard Z

I fixed up the drawings and as you said, removing the thumbnail solved that. I really does look pretty now.

I can get some of the postdocs working with me to look at the article as it is now.

But I do need to fix the references. Your fixing the first couple helps in giving a guide. But I can't find where in our conversations you had given some detail on referencing. I have searched our conversation and no longer can find it.

Chzz, the only thing I'm still really in doubt is how one uses the image specifications. Thus just where would something like   go. I'm guessing that it would just have the |100px added to the file input specification. But the drawings really look nice now and I'm just curious.

Regarding your suggestion of eventually merging the present Birch article with mine, that is a possibility. The current Birch one covers about the first 10% of what I do and would need to be fixed up. Thus there may be a polite way of merging the two. The Birch had been one of my real interests and so I got started on all this work.

But if I ever finish all of this, I can think of one or more articles I could do in my spare time. Much earlier I had made a list of "Paradigms" which particularly interested me. In that I have very short summaries of those with references. Foolishly I had put a personal resume at the beginning and that got some Editors understandably bothered. That listing still remains and I've thought of taking the early resume out. But I hesitate since then it would not be too clear who had written that. The nice thing about the listing, it has topics not covnered in Wikkipedia, topics covered marginally, and some covered better but without proper referencing. Thus the list of Paradigms is a good starting point for writing other articles.

The weather here is brisk and cold (or quite cool) about 45 deg F. But we are promise 71 deg in just another day.

Chzz, I should end. We have a "Spring Break" here with the undergraduate students largely being off on vacations. Thus, I have more time to spend on things.

Best wishes, Howard

Howard E. Zimmerman 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chzz, if I ever get done with this Birch Reduction job, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with a pair of references which are separated from their mention and they come together.
To: Chzz From: Howard Zimmerman

The following is the text.

Using simple Hückel computations in 1961 it was shown that the Birch mechanism was incorrect. The correct mechanism M is depicted in Figure 1. [Note Ref 4, also Ref 5].

[4] "Orientation in Metal Ammonia Reductions," Zimmerman, H. E, Tetrahedron, 1961, 16, 169-176.

[5]"Base-Catalyzed Rearrangements," Chapter 6 of "Molecular Rearrangements," Zimmerman, H. E., Ed. P. DeMayo, Interscience, 345-406, New York, 1963.

End of the text.

I've tried ptting eht  at the beginning and the end of this except for the [4] which is at the beginning. The reference is properly put in the list at the end of the article but the superscript [4] isn't in a reasonable place and isn't moveable.

It isn't clear to me how the method picks up the superscript [4] and how it decides to place it.

I have done only a temporary edit and closed before anything was destroyed.

Any suggestions?

Chzz, please get normal sleep tonight and I'll be patient. It isn't reasonable for me to ask so many questions and the to get you responding at crazy hours.

Best wishes,

Howard

Howard E. Zimmerman 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)


 * Hi there. I think you'd kinda fixed it, but anyway - I have attempted to fix up the referencing throughout. The only problem you are having is, you are 'trying too hard' - you don't need to do the work; let the system do it for you. All you need to do is to put, for example,

This is a fact. Another fact.

You can also 'name' references, so that you can use them several times. I have used this technique in the article. For example, This is a fact.

Another fact here, which uses the same ref.


 * Hopefully, I have fixed the references correctly in User:Hezimmerman/Birch reduction. Please review the help on references that I put on your own talk page, which should explain it.


 * Also, another question - I notice that your talk page has got very long, with all those old messages about deletions and things. Would you like me to 'archive' the old stuff, and add a link to the archive at the top of your talk page? This might make your talk page more manageable. Let me know if you want me to do that.  Chzz  ►  13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation help
Mr. Chzz, you helped me a few days ago on using harvard style citations on the South Jordan, Utah page. I'm having trouble with a citation. I'm trying to cite a pdf article on the Jordan River (Utah) page and do it in the harvard style. I'm citing the article 4-5 times with different pages from the article each time. I've looked at other pages on how to do it, but there seems to be different was to do it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.Bgwhite (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. This isn't easy to explain, so I will do it by example - please see User:Chzz/South. I hope that it will make sense. Note that, because there is no 'author', I have 'forced' the link to be upon "CITEREFCrime_in_Utah2007" - the HarvNB template makes the link by combining the first two parameters that it is given.


 * I do hope that this makes sense; it's not the easiest to explain. Yes, there are other ways of doing it too - this is just how I would do it. Best,  Chzz  ►  14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I hadn't seen it done that way, but I also like it the because it follows the same format as referencing books.Bgwhite (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Interested
Chzz,

I'm interesting in doing more here at wikipedia, but I'm a bit overwhelmed and don't have any idea where to start. I'm used to some sort of training before I jump into doing things because, frankly, I don't want to jump into editing anything and then have people come behind me deleting everything I tried to edit. LOL That would be a real discouragement for me ...  I'm the sort of person who wants to learn how to do things the right way in the beginning. Is there any sort of training that goes on here for new people so they know and learn the ins and outs of what is good to do, when to do it, what to look for, and so on? I learn by doing ... trying to learn by reading all the wiki info just puts me to sleep because it's a bit overwhelming. Too much information at one time, if you know what I mean?

I'll check back for any response... thanks.......... Sysecho01 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. This is a common problem; Wikipedia is enormous, and often seems overwhelming. Nobody knows all areas; indeed, many people find a 'niche' - for example, some people just work on featured articles, or update the "Did you know..." queue. There are many, many ways to get involved - it depends on what you enjoy doing.


 * I am more than happy to help you, and can suggest ideas whenever you like. I'm glad that you are the type of person who learns by doing because, frankly, it is impossible to document all aspects; there are many, many pages that give guidance in specific areas, but again, it is overwhelming. The missing manual is the closest thing we have to a general reference, and you may find that useful.


 * For now, I suggest that you look at Category:Articles needing cleanup from March 2010 - look at any article listed there, and see if you can improve it a little bit; perhaps just fixing the spelling, putting the title in  bold , fixing == Section headings ==, or something. If the article has no references, put at the very top of it. If it needs more references, put  . Have a go. In doing that, you will no doubt come across things that raise more questions; please ask me. Start out small; pick things up by doing.


 * I wish you the very best of luck. Please ask as many things as you like.  Chzz  ►  15:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(note: archived, and copied to user talk so they have links, etc  Chzz  ►  09:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

A real problem has developed with the references, also Figure 1 has moved oddly and I can't get it back in place
To: Chzz From: Howard Zimmerman

Chzz,

I had just figured out how to deal with References 4 and 5 and got them reasonably set up (at least to start).

But on looking at the article now, I see that the references are somehow in trouble and mixed up.

Another problem somehow developed. The drawing for Figure 1 is oddly placed. I've attemted to give it more space, but the space is put partially before the caption and the drawing doesn't move left but is oddly to the right.

Chzz, I appreciate your wanting to help. Especially in view of my uncertainty earlier about the referencing.

But is it possible to get the Article back to where it was this morning. I had just fixed up References 4 and 5. I realize that I could improve them further but the basic job really was ok.

I think I can put the rest of the references in all right.

But I don't know if the article as it waa this morning is archived and can be retrieved.

If not, I can go through the article and see if I can get the right referencing.

I haven't figured out exactly what went wrong.

But Reference 3 should be to Krapcho and Bothner-By

Then Ref 4 should be to the 1961 Tetrahedron article

and Ref 5 to the Interscience 1973 article.

After that Ref 6 should be the Birch and Nasipuri 1959 article.

Chzz, if needed I can go through and experiment with fixing this up.

But I'm a bit uncertain about how to change the referencing although I can try.

AND, I don't know how to move the Drawing in Figure 1 to be to the left and centered. while it was ok originally, my attempts to move it back haven't worked.

Thus if the article has been archived and can be gotten back, that would be simplest.

Chzz, it does appear that I've been the source of too much work for you. Neverheless please do realize that I appreciate the help.

Best wishes,

Howard

Howard E. Zimmerman 17:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)


 * Nothing is ever lost; the history shows all the previous versions, and all edits, back from when a page was made - see WP:HISTORY, and look at the page history.


 * I have tried to fix the refs from your description above - hopefully it is a bit better now; it's probably still not right, but considering most of it is correct, it might be easier to work from that. If you would rather just go back to the version before I edited it today though, that's easy enough, as explained above - or, let me know, and I'll put it back for you. Possibly it is easier to fix the existing, and refer back to this version.


 * Re. the figure, well, this is the problem I've been trying to describe. If you leave a number of blank lines to space the figures, then it might look OK to you, but it won't on another persons browser. You cannot rely on the text being the same size on their system, nor can you expect everyone to use a screen with the same resolution. This is a problem, with inserting images directly, rather than using the thumbnail system.  Chzz  ►  18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Two more things, to make our lives easier;


 * Please fix your signature, so it stops doing this 'unsigned comments' thing. To do that, click on 'my preferences', clear anything in the "Signature:" box, and make sure that the checkbox " Sign my name exactly as shown" is not checked.


 * When you make sections here (to leave messages), could you keep the title short? The long titles make it a bit unwieldy in the table of contents etc.


 * Neither are a huge problem; just trying to make things easier. Hope to hear more soon.  Chzz  ►  18:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To: Chzz - The manuscript with Scrambled references. Shall I start working on it or do we have an Archive of what it looked like this morning? Also, the problem with Figure 1
Trying to reach Chzz

Chzz,

There was a note about a message you left at 1:30 or so. My time or your time?

But I don't seem to find the message.

As I mentioned, it would really help if you have an archive of what I had for the Article this morning.

I can start working on it, but that would be silly if there is an archive.

The referencing problem began with Ref 1 and an attempt to dissect reference 1 into parts. But in the process, Reference 4 (Tetrahedron paper) was totally lost and the references were scrambled.

Thus, should I start working on the Article?

Also, I don't know what happened to Figure 1 and its caption so that the drawing has move wildly to the right and the Caption picks up space just before it.

Best wishes,

Howard

Howard E. Zimmerman 19:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)


 * My reply is below your previous message, which is directly above this section.  Chzz  ►  19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

From Howard
Chzz,

I sent a message earlier and hope it got to you.

I'm hesitant to work on fixing the scrambled references since I don't know if you have found an Archive to restore that to what it was this morning (My morning should be 7 hours or so later for you).

The Problem seems to start with Reference 2. Thus the Birch Reference is properly 1 but the Wilds reference should be 2. I don't have the article in front of me, but I think the two references have somehow been combined.

I probably can fix that but it would be easier to work with the article as it was this morning.

Also, I don't know how to give Figure 1 and the caption for Figure 1 placed properly as they were. Whenever I put more space after the caption, it goes partially before the caption.

I hope this (and my ealier message) gets to you.

I have a meeting I have to attend 1:30 for a few hours but will get back to the office after that.

Best wishes and apologizies for the extra problems.

Howard

Howard E. Zimmerman 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)


 * I have replied, above.  Chzz  ►  21:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

References fixed; Have copy, will check, Only Ref 4 at the end should be "named"
Chzz,

I think I have everything fixed except for one reference. Near the end on doing a Save there is a complaint about the one reference which has "no reference". It is a repeat of Reference 4 and I need to convince myself how to convert Ref 4 to a Named Reference and then Refer back to it.

Chzz, I finally figured out how to make Figure 1 look better. The placement of the "File:..etc" for Figure 1 seems to be controlling. But also, there was part of the Figure 1 Title which was getting in the way and I took it out (perhaps can add it later).

At this point I have copies of the Edit and the Readable versions and will print them out tonight for proof-reading.

I did run into a minor problem when doing a Preview; somehow I don't get back to the Edit version with the corrections just made. Thus I always have to do a Save.

It has been some work but I think it looks reasonably good. I'm just hoping that I haven't overlooked any real errors.

I did fix up that Signature stuff as requested.

You should not stay up until the wee hours again, at least not to work on my stuff.`

Best wishes,

Howard

Howard E. Zimmerman 21:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

Asmegowan
Thank you for moving my article to the correct userpage. I tried to reach you via one of the other links once internet service was restored here, but apparently did not get through. I will now try to upload a picture. I do not know who has the copyright, but it is an image already published widely on other sites about my subject. It was a publicity shot. --Asmegowan (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope that the person who wrote "Not only clearly an ad, it's also clearly a copyright violation. I've re-deleted accordingly. Woogee (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC) in the space under my message was not referring to my subject, who is not advertising anything as his active days are over.   Do people delete and re-delete articles without even reading them?   --Asmegowan (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the message below is not related to this article, but to something else that I was doing at the time. The user didn't delete the page, they tagged it for 'speedy deletion' (twice, actually) while I was helping fix it up. The page is Peterson School. Anyway, articles can only be 'speedy deleted' if they meet very specific conditions, such as being totally blank, copyright violations, or 'clearly non-nobtale subject' (mostly young people creating a page about themselves) - this is detailed in WP:CSD. For anything else, proposals to delete articles are given several days to fix things.  Chzz  ►  13:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

PetSch
Not only clearly an ad, it's also clearly a copyright violation. I've re-deleted accordingly. Woogee (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello, Chzz. Would you like to be nominated for adminship?  N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 22:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No; I'm sorry. Thank you very much for the kind offer though!  Chzz  ►  22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Message from userpage 1
I was led to your User Page and Hope it is all right to put my message here

Chzz,

I sent a message earlier and hope it got to you.

I'm hesitant to work on fixing the scrambled references since I don't know if you have found an Archive to restore that to what it was this morning (My morning should be 7 hours or so later for you).

The Problem seems to start with Reference 2. Thus the Birch Reference is properly 1 but the Wilds reference should be 2. I don't have the article in front of me, but I think the two references have somehow been combined.

I probably can fix that but it would be easier to work with the article as it was this morning.

Also, I don't know how to give Figure 1 and the caption for Figure 1 placed properly as they were. Whenever I put more space after the caption, it goes partially before the caption.

I hope this (and my ealier message) gets to you.

I have a meeting I have to attend 1:30 for a few hours but will get back to the office after that.

Best wishes and apologizies for the extra problems.

Howard

Howard E. Zimmerman 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that this was answered before I found it (on my user page)  Chzz  ►  03:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Message from userpage 3
Thank You for the help Hannahyay (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.


 * : -)  Chzz  ►  23:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Message from userpage 2
To: Chzz

Thanks for the suggestion, Chzz. Yes, do archive the very old Talk stuff.

Best Howard E. Zimmerman 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

✅

Message from userpage 4
To: Chzz From: Howard

Chzz,

In reading one of your comments now that I have it all on my pc, I noted that you would have liked to see more references. But, Chzz, I have every reference obtainable from SciFinder dealing with the mechanistic aspects of the Birch Reduction. Thus, the understanding of the reaction has been difficult. But there are no other views that have been given. All of the references come from referee journals and thus have passed muster. And in the Article, there is no new original work. For those not familiar with the literature it should prove new.

The qualitative and superficial aspects of the reaction can be seen in the references given. Yes, there must be hundreds (thousands?) of synthetic applications of the reaction but that is outside of the scope of the article and in any case is simple and repetitive. It could be the subject of another article but a very dull one since all the aynthetic examples follow precisely the same pattern considered in the present article.

I did look up the Wiki definition and description of reliable. It would seem that all of this is reliable since it is references from journals such as JACS, etc. Also, there is mention of writing by an expert in the field; and it fits that also.

Thus, Chzz, I don't have much choice in referencing. I've picked every article I could find.

I have a tendency to write too much and have done it again.

Best,

Howard

Howard E. Zimmerman 21:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dealt with elsewhere, I think.  Chzz  ►  04:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

William Windsor (goat)
GAR · ·

BUMP  Chzz  ►  07:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)